-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 200
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Make device_memory_resource::do_get_mem_info() and supports_get_mem_info() not pure virtual. Remove derived implementations and calls in RMM #1430
Merged
rapids-bot
merged 4 commits into
rapidsai:branch-24.02
from
harrism:fea-nonpure-mem_info
Jan 23, 2024
Merged
Changes from 2 commits
Commits
Show all changes
4 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
6e6f31a
Prep for deprecation by making supports_get_mem_info() and get_mem_in…
harrism 1e8cf50
Remove derived mem_info implementations and tests
harrism c381bfb
Merge branch 'branch-24.02' into fea-nonpure-mem_info
harrism b5c49ef
remove commented out deprecations for now
harrism File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
To clarify my understanding, a later PR will uncomment this and deprecate this method?
If so, can we add the deprecation notice in that second PR rather than leaving a commented deprecation notice in this PR? If I came across this code I would think it was previously deprecated and is now un-deprecated by the commenting.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@bdice yes, see the plan in #1388 (checklist item 3 is what you're looking for)
I agree with him that we should do this later
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Related, but possible a comment more relevant to a subsequent PR if we do remove the deprecation notice in this PR: how should we document the difference between querying for the total device memory available and the amount provided by the memory resource? The difficulty in accurately providing the latter is one reason that this API is being removed, but prior users may have expected it to be working. Should we include that explanation somewhere? I think #1388 explains this fairly well, maybe adding it to a PR description (perhaps in the PR actually adding the deprecation) would be sufficient so that the explanation is immortalized in the changelog (i.e. in the git repo rather than only on GH).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We document it, yes. FWIW, at least within RAPIDS, there are no uses of
get_mem_info
.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Removed comments. Those were from my initial testing of deprecation. That was intended to surface needed changes in other RAPIDS libraries. "Allowed" deprecation warnings in the other libraries makes this difficult, and a textual search turns out to be easier.